2-D for me, please

(c) 2010 by Steve Martaindale
Originally released for publication July 14, 2010

Like a kid enamored by a new catchphrase or clothing style, the movie industry has latched onto 3-D as if it is the natural progression of entertainment.

After giving it a fair shot, my wife and I have written it off as a failed experiment, not markedly better than earlier efforts at faking it on the big screen.

Admittedly, one of our biggest objections is discomfort. We both wear eyeglasses, meaning the 3-D glasses must ride atop our spectacles, awkwardly at that. However, I don’t believe the double-glasses is the only reason our eyes hurt while watching 3-D or why it tends to create headaches.

The greatest condemnation, though, is the special effect does nothing to enhance a film.

Let’s face it, 3-D only makes the movie more faked. We know any film is make-believe and we agree to ride along ... what some call the willful suspension of disbelief. We know there are no genuine alien monsters on the screen, that no hero is really that perfect, that politicians are not all that crooked. (OK, work with me here.)

But we sign up to go along for the ride. We allow ourselves to believe, just for the duration of the film, that ET needs a little boy’s help to get home.

Besides, we’re already wired to convert images to three-dimensional. Our brain does it for us. In many ways, even real-world vision is two-dimensional, but our minds assimilate the information to the point where we determine depth – the third dimension.

What it has done to the movie industry is make it more lazy, more likely to rely on style over substance, flash over acting, special effects over talent.

Maybe the movie industry has figured out many of us do not like 3-D. At our local theater last weekend, all three 3-D movies were also offered in 2-D, so we were able to watch the film without the extra glasses, eyestrain or $2.25 surcharge.

That’s not good enough, however.

No, the 3-D movement has negatively affected the entire film industry.

We opted to watch “The Last Airbender” in hopes of catching a good story. Admittedly, it was obvious from the trailer the movie would be heavy on special effects, but that’s OK. “Star Wars” opened up a whole new aspect of film-making with its special effects, but it also told a wonderful story.

We left “Airbender” considerably disappointed. The movie’s estimated $150 million budget apparently left little for spending on cast and script.

The basic story line is promising, but they failed to sell it, even though the effects were such that we could believe air and water were indeed “bent.”

That’s where 3-D (and we must include broader applications of special effects) has hurt filmmaking. The emphasis has gone from quality script + great acting + skillful directing + artful editing = blockbuster movie. Now it’s mostly bells and whistles.

We were still in movie mode after leaving the theater and rented “The Blind Side,” a mere $29 million movie that mixed big-name talent (Sandra Bullock and Kathy Bates) with young newcomers (Quinton Aaron and Jae Head).

It was the antithesis of “Airbender,” a good story (mostly true, too) with fantastic acting. It was easily Bullock’s best acting job, earning her an Academy Award earlier this year.

So, that is to say the movie industry is not a total loss, but it might be more difficult to find good viewing until Hollywood outgrows its infatuation with 3-D and other overdone special effects.